Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy.

Pachler, Jørn, Wille-Jørgensen, Peer·2005·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For almost one hundred years abdominoperineal excision has been the standard treatment of choice for rectal cancer. With advances in the techniques for rectal resection and anastomosis, anterior resection with preservation of the sphincter function has become the preferred treatment for rectal cancers, except for those cancers very close to the anal sphincter. The main reason for this has been the conviction that the quality of life for patients with a colostomy after abdominoperineal excision was poorer than for patients undergoing a sphincter-preserving technique. However, patients having sphincter-preserving operations may experience symptoms affecting their quality of life that are different from those with stoma-patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without permanent colostomy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group's specialised register. Abstract books from major gastroenterological and colorectal congresses were searched. Reference lists of the selected articles were scrutinized. SELECTION CRITERIA: All controlled clinical trials and observational studies in which quality of life was measured in patients with rectal cancer having either abdominoperineal excision or low anterior resection, using a validated quality of life instrument, were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JP) checked the titles and abstracts identified from the databases and hand search. Full text copies of all studies of possible relevance were obtained. The reviewer decided which studies met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers independently extracted data. If information was insufficient the original author was contacted to obtain missing data. Extracted data were crosschecked and discrepancies resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty potential studies were identified. Eleven of these, all non-randomised and representing 1412 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six trials found that people undergoing abdominoperineal excision did not have poorer quality of life measures than patients undergoing anterior resection. One study found that a stoma only slightly affected the person's quality of life. Four studies found that patients receiving abdominoperineal excision had significantly poorer quality of life than after anterior resection. Due to heterogeneity, meta-analysis of the included studies was not possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The studies included in this review do not allow firm conclusions as to the question of whether the quality of life of people after anterior resection is superior to that of people after abdominoperineal excision. The included studies challenged the assumption that anterior resection patients fare better.Larger, better designed and executed prospective studies are needed to answer this question.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd004323.pub3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Pachler, J., & Wille-Jørgensen, P.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2005-04-20
Issue
2
Pages
CD004323-CD004323
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4246157212
Cited by
198
References
1
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd004323.pub3
The paper
Pachler, J., & Wille-Jørgensen, P. (2005). Quality of life after rectal resection for cancer, with or without permanent colostomy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004323.pub3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.